[redacted spelling joke beginning with A-S- and ending with a Warning]
[QUOTE=Asimovian]
I might also note that I’ve been on this board 10 years, and you people STILL can’t spell my name correctly…
[/QUOTE]
That’s because you are spelling your name incorrectly. 
That’s nice dear.
Yeah, which is part of the reason the stupid “no critisizing banned posters*” rule eventually happened. Liberal(tarian) kept interrupting discussions/pile ons/fights about banned posters to scold people (“It is unseemly to gloat over the fallen”**) because he apparently had a morbid fear of being dissed if he got banned. He eventually got enough mods to sign onto that theory to make it a mostly official rule.
Out of curiosity, to any mods-
A) Can we revisit this rule? Or is it locked in stone forever? It’s silly that we could pit him (and he wouldn’t ever respond) before his suspension but we can’t pit him now.
B) What about just a plain old pit thread–no discussing supensions/bannings, just a normal pit thread? I don’t think that’s ever been addressed.
*this is before suspensions
**Note: This is a messageboard. It’s not “bullying” since they don’t have to read it, and “the fallen” are people who are alive, healthy and still have internet access. They’re not WWII soldiers who’ve died, gloriously defending the country.
I was under the distinct impression, for years now, that discussion of Mod decisions about infractions, was off limits for discussion.
Can we get a Mod ruling on this.
As is in accord with my absolutist stance on free speech, I am always against banning unless someone goes well beyond the pale.
In my opinion, the extremist views of a poster like Der Trihs doesn’t typically detract from the discussion. Though he does come off as a broken record, and his remarks in the Greece Anti-Austerity thread were insulting to myself and others who simply wished to reinforce the reasons we agreed with imposed austerity.
There are methods to try to prevent it but they can be problematic. One board I still sometimes visit tends to throw in blocking the IP address for read access to non-logged in visitors. It’s problematic. It technically can throw false positives in the case of shared IP addresses. It’s also not all that complicated to circumvent. I saw it turn into whack a mole in a couple cases. Blocking reading always seemed a bit draconian to me. I much prefer the just can’t log in/post method.
Read post #3.
I think Sno-Balls are the superior Hostess treat.
Can we get a mod ruling on this?
Does the Sno-Ball believe in God?
That is just flat out disgusting. If this becomes official board policy I will rage against the machine until my lifetime ban, which I will joyfully accept.
Sensible people can of course disagree on the merits of different Hostess snacks. Except when it comes to Sno-Balls which are vileness cubed.
Balled.
Unless your IP address is also blocked.
Regarding DT, I am with others who feel his banning is imminent, which is too bad as I do believe there has been a bit of witchhuntery of late when it comes to him, which I expressed a number of months ago after he received a previous mod note or warning, I believe from JC. My opinion here in no way excuses any of DT’s infractions, real or imagined; remedy was applied as management saw fit. Done. Going back, however, two years or more in order to build a case for suspension is a tad ridiculous.
I also don’t understand the point of stating that DT received an average of a warning every three months. Averaging the number of infractions over an arbitrary period chosen for highest impact to bolster the argument for the suspension is a bit too convenient, not to mention lacking appropriate context in addition to being a bit squirrelly, don’t you think? I am actually somewhat surprised and disappointed by the use of such a tactic here.
Although I am on “DT’s side” politically, I have also supported conservative board members who I have absolutely nothing in common with other than being a fellow human being, such as Starving Artist, when I have seen discussion bashing the poster that was a little too personal or over-the-top. I am not arguing for **DT **based on any political affiliation we may share. I am simply not seeing, based solely on the latest infraction and those within, say, the last year (admittedly arbitrary), justification for suspension.
Expecting DT to magically change his personality, which is really what is being asked of him when it comes down to it, to comport with whatever new definition of model member that will be demanded of him is not only not going to happen, it is silly. Might as well ban him now and get it over with.
I doubt if it was due to any one poster. I support it heartily as people often tend to lie or get wrong a posters previous posts, thoughts & ideals. Hell,they do that now all the time. It’s unfair to the "departed’ when that happens as they cant come back and clarify and correct. It also drives more socks.
I can agree with that, although it’s a pretty close contest when compared with Hoho’s.
(unless they’re coconut flavored, then all bets are off)
I must agree with my learned colleague. Sno-Balls are disgusting.
No one is asking anyone to change his personality, unless an essential part of his personality is “I am unable to follow rules”. I don’t like that we can’t say “fuck you” in the Pit, but I don’t feel I have to change my personality to avoid doing so and breaking a well-know rule. The guy was racking up warnings at a regular rate, and so a logical conclusion was that sterner measures were needed. Sometimes a “cooling off” period can do wonders since it’s easy to take this place WAAAAAY to seriously at times. But if it doesn’t work, then too bad. 99.9% of us are able to not get banned without any real effort on our parts.
PS: Hohos are the only way to fly! I did love sno-balls when I was a kid, but the thought of that rubbery frosting makes me cringe with disgust as an adult.
[Marv Albert]Yes![/ma]
I can’t imagine anyone trying those things more than once.
Pretty much all Hostess “treats” are disgusting. The Mini-powdered-sugar donuts are about the only exception. The blackberry pie is Ok. Mind you- I used to love those things.
I would assume that the moderator who pitched the suspension to the others did so because she* felt like his name had been bandied around more heavily in recent times and so went back to look at metrics to determine what “recent times” meant.
I would also imagine that 90% of the regular posters have an average of 0.01 warnings per year. I’ve been posting fairly regularly for a decade and, I don’t believe, I have ever received one. Arbitrary or not - the pareto principle would say that someone is going to be the worst offender on the board by a wide margin, no matter where you draw the line - but if you’re near-or-at the top of the warning count per reasonable time period, you shouldn’t be too surprised when the hammer comes down.
- Arbitrary pronoun that makes it easier to differentiate between the moderator and DT.
For a site which is fighting ignorance, having people spout ignorant nonsense - of any political pursuasion - outside of the Pit seems to me like it detracts from the selling point of the forum. The site doesn’t have a rule against idiocy, but if one views the job of the moderators to be to curate a particular atmosphere on the site, then it seems reasonable to expand the definition of “jerk” to include “flagrant stupidity”.
I didn’t report DT for his post, and was surprised to see my name pop up when clicking through the links that explained his suspension. But really, his posts weren’t adding anything to the debate. If your brain jumps from “This person is challenging my political ideology” to “He’s actively promoting genocide” then it does seem pretty reasonable for someone to say that you’re either spending waaaay too much time on the internet, or that your presence on a board dedicated to knowledge and understanding is questionable.
That would be the Conservative approach.